WC1Owl Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Plonk said: Sorry but I totally disagree. What we we did was crap, but it looks the the EFL were fully involved and advising throughout the process, and in particular at the August meeting in Preston. Which they seem to be unable to recall now! It seems to me that we were inept, and the EFL were inept and dishonest. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the third man Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 21 minutes ago, agentwalker said: Only mentions the interpreter for this appeal hearing NOT the Original EFL questioning where they claim he deliberately gave dodgy answers due to his lack of english. They need to be careful saying things like that as well, that could lead to further accusations against them 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essix Blue Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 This makes me a bit angry 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S25OWL Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 The only winners from this will be the QC's earning their big bucks - surprise it didn't mention the sale of Jack Hunt by name ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: This makes me a bit angry The positive about clearly the unfairness is that we as a club need to unite as management , team and fans use that anger to push us on up the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofbert2 Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Not sure if this has been posted but pretty disgusting and typical from the EFL to suggest this. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grandad Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, Plonk said: No, keep reading. Blimey It gets even more confusing There seems to be a suggestion that the EFL were under the impression that there was a 'irrevocable term sheet' guaranteeing the sale - in advance of Heads of Terms - and that was given at the meeting with the EFL. But the club are saying that was never said? This is incredibly complex and can fully understand why it took so long to come up with a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 28 minutes ago, Grandad said: I'm halfway through. Had to stop for a break cos my head is spinning So far - it seems to suggest 1. That at our old year end we would have exceeded P&S and therefore been subjected to a points deduction 2. That we asked the EFL if we could sell our stadium to include it in our accounts to avoid P&S deduction - and the EFL suggested that if it was done in time to be included in the accounts - Yes we could 3. We indicated we would extend our Y/E to June to ensure it would be 4. The EFL said that Heads of Terms making the sale irreversible must be written and signed before the Y/E, and a valuation included 5. We then extended the Y/E to end July 2018 and still on the 30/31 July we were trying to raise funds by selling players 6. At close of business on the 31/July we still hadn't sold the stadium and were therefore in breach 7. Mid August we created heads of terms and backdated signatures to mid July 8. We created 2 more lots of Heads Of Termsand backdated them - presumably superceding previous versions 8.5. None of the Heads of terms were valid as they weren't signed before 31st July 9. We took no legal advice from suitably qualified lawyers expereinced in this kind of sale 10. Sale of the stadium wasn't completed until 11 months later - when it was sold to a company that was set up just a week before. 11. The auditors have stated that had they known the Heads of terms were backdated they wouldn't have signed the accounts off? ^^ Is that correct? No best go back and read again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlBiSeeinThi Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 29 minutes ago, Standidno said: We fully deserve -12. The End. We do. In the 18/19 season. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Just a note of interest , the land registration showed a different date to the transaction of the sale, however it is not uncommon for the land registration to be delayed for many reasons and not all necessarily to do with SWFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsteel89 Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 No good will come of this 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWLERTON GHOST Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 hours ago, steelcityowlsfan said: I bet Nick De Marco has gone through it with a fine tooth comb whilst baking scones. I hope they aren't "Drop Scones?".. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlsItGoing Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 16 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said: Not sure if this has been posted but pretty disgusting and typical from the EFL to suggest this. Thats absolutely disgusting from the EFL, pure rasicism, and shows that they were just doing/trying everything they could to hand us the biggest penalty possible. They cant get away with something like that in this era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grandad Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Ive just finished it Having read through the whole thing I only have one conclusion. I'd have much rather the club accepted its medicine in the shape of a points deduction for the P&S breach and still owned its own stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 41 minutes ago, Grandad said: I'm halfway through. Had to stop for a break cos my head is spinning So far - it seems to suggest 1. That at our old year end we would have exceeded P&S and therefore been subjected to a points deduction 2. That we asked the EFL if we could sell our stadium to include it in our accounts to avoid P&S deduction - and the EFL suggested that if it was done in time to be included in the accounts - Yes we could 3. We indicated we would extend our Y/E to June to ensure it would be 4. The EFL said that Heads of Terms making the sale irreversible must be written and signed before the Y/E, and a valuation included 5. We then extended the Y/E to end July 2018 and still on the 30/31 July we were trying to raise funds by selling players 6. At close of business on the 31/July we still hadn't sold the stadium and were therefore in breach 7. Mid August we created heads of terms and backdated signatures to mid July 8. We created 2 more lots of Heads Of Termsand backdated them - presumably superceding previous versions 8.5. None of the Heads of terms were valid as they weren't signed before 31st July 9. We took no legal advice from suitably qualified lawyers expereinced in this kind of sale 10. Sale of the stadium wasn't completed until 11 months later - when it was sold to a company that was set up just a week before. 11. The auditors have stated that had they known the Heads of terms were backdated they wouldn't have signed the accounts off? ^^ Is that correct? I'm also halfway through (page 21, para 87), and stopped to try and make sense of what I've just read. I think you've summed it up pretty well so far. If you've not got this far, the only other points I would add are: 1. "Annual Accounts for the Club for the 14 months to 31 July 2018 were not in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standards", and as such "they are not 'Annual Accounts'". As they are not classed as "Annaul Accounts" we haven't actually submitted our accounts and therefore Charge 1 (of breaking P&S upper threshold) is premature. 2. The rules "are set out to be capable of meaningful enforcement within a reasonable period" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, Grandad said: Ive just finished it Having read through the whole thing I only have one conclusion. I'd have much rather the club accepted its medicine in the shape of a points deduction for the P&S breach and still owned its own stadium. Me too. However, the club didn't know at the time what the punishment would be, despite asking the EFL to clarify this. They only decided the scale of points deductions after our P&S breach. It's pretty clear the club felt certain they had assurances from the EFL that by selling Hillsborough they would avoid a points deduction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, Grandad said: Ive just finished it Having read through the whole thing I only have one conclusion. I'd have much rather the club accepted its medicine in the shape of a points deduction for the P&S breach and still owned its own stadium. Agree but I certainly think EFL come out of these findings in a much worse light than swfc! - the 2nd charge (and personal charges) publicly made against the directors / club without a shred of proof and/or without any investigations into it beforehand is an utter disgrace - the notion that the club and the EFL were still discussing in AUGUST what would need to be in the contact but the EFL didn't realize said contract would be backdated to July is rediculous - sounds like from may - July EFL dragged their heels in giving club guidance on what they needed from the club. - can forget notion that has been thrown around that club only decided to sell stadium in mid July 2019 and then back dated by a year - the borderline racist accusations against chansiri should have consequences - it's clear EFL could have changed us for FFP at same time as Birmingham but didn't because either they were happy with everything and didn't act until Gibson started mouthing off or deliberately awaited to try and relegate club. The guidelines for sanctions have no reference to picking and choosing when to apply to make more/less harsh Finally conclusive proof that EFL are a shambles and in no way shape or form fit for purpose!!! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grandad Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: Agree but I certainly think EFL come out of these findings in a much worse light than swfc! - the 2nd charge (and personal charges) publicly made against the directors / club without a shred of proof and/or without any investigations into it beforehand is an utter disgrace Yep - totally agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopparberg Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, striker said: It's certainly a bold accusation to suggest someone with limited grasp of English is deceitful and obstructive on the basis of they are not a natural English speaker. How many different nationalities of owners are in the football league, that they would have experience in talking to ? I would guess quite a lot... yet they say this about DC. It Suggests discrimination. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffix Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Does feel like there is a case for defamation of character going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now